Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

[BLUEJACKET]

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

As to effectiveness against ground installations, this is generally true, although with refueling capability that effectiveness can be extended when necessary.
At 400-600 miles off shore, I believe a carrier will still be difficult to locate and a very hard nut to crack. It is a moving target, it is well defended, and it is not so easy to find as you portray within those distances. 400 to 600 miles is a long ways and there are many different azimuths to search at those distances from the land mass. With ECM, and using passive methods, it is not as easy to find...depending on weather and the capabilities of the spaces based assets, it is also not a sure thing that it will be found....and once it is, as I say, it is not an easy thing, even for the PRC, to then go out and challenge it.

Who cares if it's impossible to find them in the open ocean -assuming with a strech that it's true at all times? To accomplish their mission of power projection ashore, a CSG must come within striking distance of their intended targets.
As I observed already, those airtankers and AWACs can be attacked too, so the combat radius of Navy jets will be even less than 400-600mi. In war, nothing is 100% sure, but in case of China the odds are in her favor- taking the geography into consideration as well. No matter how you look at it, the seas around China from Korea in the North to the Gulf of Tonkin in the South are confined between the mainland, peninsulas, shallows, reefs and islands, with numerous straits. It won't surprise me a bit if there is a submarine cable with acustic/magnetic sensors crisscrossing the bottom in all directions, or at least in the most likely spots were CSGs may transit/operate. Maybe their escort SSNs are quiet, but other surface ships aren't, plus we all know how noisy helos, catapults and fighters are!

China's space-based surveillance and communications systems can detect and relay information on large US buildups. China's on-orbit collection systems include NRT imaging, ELINT, and SBWAS (radar). On-orbit communications systems include a Chinese-owned civilian constellation (serving Asia and Oceania) in LEO plus three military communications satellites in GEO. China also has replacement satellites and available launchers ready to go.
...the Chinese have SOSUS-type arrays in both the Sea of Japan and the East China Sea. The Chinese used commercial ships during peacetime to deploy this system. It is connected via fiber-optic cable with a control center in China (undetermined location). It is a relatively crude system; quiet submarines can operate with little chance of detection. However, large-screw surface ships and submarines firing missiles are readily detected. As a result, US Navy ships capable of offensive operations will assume a high level of risk if they operate in either the Sea of Japan or the East China Sea. [OR THE SOUTH CHINA SEA, FOR THAT MATTER!]
The arrays are sensitive enough to let experts identify not only classes but specific submarines. In addition, SOSUS can monitor the movements of naval ships on the surface of the ocean and even aircraft flying low over it.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

And if the British got a

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

SOSUS, it's not beyond the relam of possibility that the Chinese and others could deploy something similar too!

 

[Vlad Plasmius]

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

AEGIS was designed to counter exactly this scenario. There are usually three AEGIS ships with a CSG, one or two cruisers and one or two destroyers.

Doesn't matter what it was designed for. It's not as simple as having a missiles for every incoming target. Which, even with 3 cruisers would mean anything more than 381 would break through the defense. That's of course, only viable for nation like Russia, China, France or the U.K., but this is assuming the AEGIS system is 100% effective 100% of the time. That's just not realistic. Also if facing a variety of targets like say, Krypton ASMs going mach 4.5, low-flying supersonic cruise missiles, regular low-flying cruise missiles, and regular anti-ship missiles, there's no way to know how AEGIS would be able to respond in terms of effectiveness.

In addition, the entire air wing will NEVER leave the carrier. There will always be a CAP and there will always be other ready alert aircraft prepared to launch to support the CAP in a crisis. If several aircraft are pulled away to counter one threat, another CAP is immediately launched.

There's another problem. A carrier never has all of its 70 some aircraft airborne. How many will be kept in reserve and how many will be flying CAP? How fast can these aircraft get in the air?

 

[zraver]

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

For China to mount that type of attack on that scale the chances are the US would spot the preperations via numerus means is almost nil. It seems to me that a saturation attack agaisnt a CBG requires the US to wander in blind and not use other assets to pave the way for the ireplacable CBG's.

The US military is the worlds leader in first strike capabilites and these will only get better with age. China is intentionally or not pushing the world into another Cold War, and setting it self up as a rival to it's biggest trading partner.

Win or lose militarily, a war with the US is a loss for China. The US is China's market and while we (USA) can make do with out China, China's economy cannot make do with out the US. Infact a war would help the US long term by wiping out a big chunk of our debt wich is floated with Chinese capitol. In a war we would cancel the debt.

 

[Jeff Head]

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

Doesn't matter what it was designed for. It's not as simple as having a missiles for every incoming target. Which, even with 3 cruisers would mean anything more than 381 would break through the defense. That's of course, only viable for nation like Russia, China, France or the U.K., but this is assuming the AEGIS system is 100% effective 100% of the time. That's just not realistic.

First of all, no one is implying it would or could be 100% effective. You are missing the point. The point is you are proposing an attack into the teeth and strength of the CSG defenses. Yes, it is possible to overwhelm them...but it would be at great cost...and as other posters have said, preparation for it would not go unnoticed itself.

For a GREAT read on exactly this type of scenario, read the book

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, by Barrett Tillman. It has a very detailed and great description of exactly what it would take to mount such a successful attack and what the costs would be.

 

[SampanViking]

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

To Zraver

Seriously sonny, if all you intend to do is come here and BS, do us all a favour and go do it elsewhere.

If I find one more post that reads like a Clancy novel, you will receive your first official warning.

 

[BLUEJACKET]

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

For China to mount that type of attack on that scale the chances are the US would spot the preperations via numerus means is almost nil. It seems to me that a saturation attack agaisnt a CBG requires the US to wander in blind and not use other assets to pave the way for the ireplacable CBG's.
The US military is the worlds leader in first strike capabilites and these will only get better with age. China is intentionally or not pushing the world into another Cold War, and setting it self up as a rival to it's biggest trading partner.
Win or lose militarily, a war with the US is a loss for China. The US is China's market and while we (USA) can make do with out China, China's economy cannot make do with out the US. Infact a war would help the US long term by wiping out a big chunk of our debt wich is floated with Chinese capitol. In a war we would cancel the debt.

That's why the Chinese will avoid a head on confrontation: instead of trying to sink CV/CVNs they'll try to disable/degrade their capabilities by other means. The greatest skill (i.e. kung fu) is to win without fighting at all! Sun Tzu is dead, but his ideas are pretty much alive!

 

[IDonT]

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

Doesn't matter what it was designed for. It's not as simple as having a missiles for every incoming target. Which, even with 3 cruisers would mean anything more than 381 would break through the defense. That's of course, only viable for nation like Russia, China, France or the U.K., but this is assuming the AEGIS system is 100% effective 100% of the time. That's just not realistic. Also if facing a variety of targets like say, Krypton ASMs going mach 4.5, low-flying supersonic cruise missiles, regular low-flying cruise missiles, and regular anti-ship missiles, there's no way to know how AEGIS would be able to respond in terms of effectiveness.

The Aegis system was the by product of the arms race between the US and USSR. It was designed to defend the fleet against the multi regimental backfire bomber fleet that carried the super deadly AS-4 and AS-6 missiles. These missiles have a range of over 300 miles and travel at Mach 3+. This threat stop innovating in 1991. The newer missiles such as the Krypton are not stockpiled in large quantities and no dedicated maritime strike aircraft wing exist in large quantities that continually practice to hunt and kill a carrier strike group. In the mean time, the Aegis system has reached its 7th incarnation. The Baseline 7.0 Aegis is multitude superior to what it was in the 1980's. Furthermore, missiles such as RAM and ESSM are America's answer to these "wonder weapons."

The main problem with hitting a fast low flying missile is not interception, it is actually easier to plot the intercept of a low flying missile since the computer only has to calculate in 2 dimensions. The problem is with fusing the blast fragmentation warhead. Missiles such as the Sunburn move so fast that they fly past the kill radius of the Standard 2. This is why the USN has live fire exercise against low flying and high speed drones (VANDALEX) to continually hone both man and machinery for such task.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

To answer your question, yes the Aegis will have no problem facing a variety of targets with multiple flight and threat profile. In fact, if put in autonomous mode, it can do so without human interference.

There's another problem. A carrier never has all of its 70 some aircraft airborne. How many will be kept in reserve and how many will be flying CAP? How fast can these aircraft get in the air?

If a carrier is under threat, they usually launch ALL of its aircraft, drain the aviation fuel lines, and flood them with C02. This standard to prevent catastrophic damage (aircraft are prone to exploding) see Battle of Midway and Forrestal fire. Non essential aircraft (ASW, AEW) orbit away from the threat axis.

US carrier commanders have a battle space of about 700 miles in the open ocean. That is anything on that area can be detected, tracked, identified, and prosecuted if hostile without putting the carrier at immediate risk.

One more thing, the threat level you guys are proposing does not exist. Nether China nor Russia possess the assets, the anti-ship missiles is sufficient number, the command and control and logistical knowhow, and personnel with sufficient training to conduct a blue water maritime strike (flying in blue water in different than in land). So all of this discussion is just academic.

On that note, a wonder weapon do exist in sinking a carrier. It is called a B-2 stealth bomber. Assuming that the carrier is located, the B-2 can sneak into its radar gaps and drop a bunker buster JDAM straight through the flight deck.

 

[BLUEJACKET]

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

From the shape of the flight deck, that is either the JFK or one of the Nimitz carriers. But it looks to have an old assortment of aircraft on deck...seems like some A-6's and F-4s perhaps in addition to E-2C, F-18, etc. In addition, the carrier number, characteristically on deck near the bow, is missing, probably PS'ed out to keep from identifying it...meaning, IMHO, it is not a recent photo at all.

I couldn't discern neither A-6's nor F-4s - they looked like parked F-18s with folded wings. The hall # could be just too fussy to read, but I would appreciate if someone could do computer image analysis. The color of the water tells me that it is either the Persian/Oman Gulf or Arabian Sea. Technicaly, the Gulf of Oman & Arabian Sea are part of the Indian Ocean!
I hope you like these IL-38 pictures!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[zraver]

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

*********************************
Zraver, you should know by now that this forum is very strict. If you want to complain, send a PM. You have one. It is no use complaining here since you are driving the thread off topic. And yes, Tom Clancy is a very sensitive item here. So please, next time, use your PM. Thank you.

Sumdud

Now lets talk about a more realistc approach,

If for some reason the US and PRC were headed for a real life shooting war (no nuclear powers have ever fought a real war amongst themselves) it is probably going to be over Taiwan. For China to win it has to occupy the Island, and that requires amphibious and airborne units. neither of which i a small easily hidden asset.

How are you going to hide all those troops moving from cantons to embarcation sites and then boarding those ships and planes?

I really really want to know how all that traffic is going to be missed. I mean it might be, but you don't plan wars on mightbe's and maybe's.

The US goal in any war will be the transports. With out them the PRC cannot invade on a large enough scale (or supply the beachhead) to beat the RoC. How do I know this with 100% certanity?

Because the US Military has more experiance in putting and keeping troops ashore than any military in history. It knows the logistics end of the operation and knows that that is the weak link. The US almost lost the Battle of the Phillipines when the IJN came with in a hairs breath of smashing the transports.

Now how is the US going to get at those linchpin units? Not a carrier, I know the America haters want to see a carrier go down so bad they can taste it. But any re-alistic observer knows that the USN knows it's carriers are target numero uno and for that reason is very skittish when it comes to placing them in harms way. CBG's are show the flag units like the old use of battleships and cruisers for gunboat diplomacy.

The navy's real warfighters are the subs

BLUEJACKET

That's why the Chinese will avoid a head on confrontation: instead of trying to sink CV/CVNs they'll try to disable/degrade their capabilities by other means. The greatest skill (i.e. kung fu) is to win without fighting at all! Sun Tzu is dead, but his ideas are pretty much alive!

I have absolute faith that the Chinese admirals and generals facing the problem of the USN are top notch and working tiressly to figure out how to over come the imbalance in the OoB, and that thier skill, training, and intrelligence is upto the task. I also have absolute faith that the USN has people just as skilled and intelligent working just as hard to keep the edge as far on the US side as possible.

The biggest disadvantages facing China is the USN has a huge head start in tactics (the USSR posed the same problem but on a far greater scale) and an equally large lead in both numbers and technology. It will be at least 20 years before the PLAN really has a chance of catching up. And by then who knows where technology on either side will have gone.

 

[Finn McCool]

Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?

That's why the Chinese will avoid a head on confrontation: instead of trying to sink CV/CVNs they'll try to disable/degrade their capabilities by other means. The greatest skill (i.e. kung fu) is to win without fighting at all! Sun Tzu is dead, but his ideas are pretty much alive!

Yes, the writings of Sun Tzu have a massive influence on Chinese military thinking. The PLA, PLAAF and PLAN would have to work together to deal with concentrated USN power. The Clausewitz way to do this would be to launch a massive attack against the US forces with subs, surface ships, PLAAF and PLANAF aircraft and Ballistic missles. This attack would probably fail. The Sun Tzu way to take care of the problem would be to preserve your assets and allow the USN to lose its air wings trying to penetrate China's air defence.